SKILLED Group Limited

Case [2018] FWCA 5999


[2018] FWCA 5999
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

SKILLED Group Limited
(AG2017/6015)

SKILLED GROUP LTD LABOUR HIRE ETU UNION COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT 2010-2014

Electrical contracting industry

COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC

MELBOURNE, 4 OCTOBER 2018

Application for termination of the SKILLED Group Ltd Labour Hire ETU Union Collective Agreement 2010-2014.

[1] SKILLED Group Limited (the Applicant) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) to terminate the SKILLED Group Ltd Labour Hire ETU Union Collective Agreement 2010-2014 (the Agreement).

[2] The Agreement came into operation on 27 September 2011 with a nominal expiry date of 31 October 2014.

[3] The Applicant filed a statutory declaration of Ms Carina Winstanley, declared 7 December 2017 (Statutory Declaration).

[4] I issued directions on 27 July 2018. The Applicant has complied with these directions.

Legislation

[5] Section 225 of the Act provides who may apply to the Commission to terminate an enterprise agreement after it has passes its nominal expiry date. Section 225 is as follows:

225 Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

If an enterprise agreement has passed its nominal expiry date, any of the following may apply to the FWC for the termination of the agreement:

(a) one or more of the employers covered by the agreement;

(b) an employee covered by the agreement;

(c) an employee organisation covered by the agreement.”

[6] Section 226 of the Act provides when the Commission must terminate an enterprise agreement. Section 226 is as follows:

226 When the FWC must terminate an enterprise agreement

If an application for the termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 225, the FWC must terminate the agreement if:

(a) the FWC is satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so; and

(b) the FWC considers that it is appropriate to terminate the agreement taking into account all the circumstances including:

(i) the views of the employees, each employer, and each employee organisation (if any), covered by the agreement; and

(ii) the circumstances of those employees, employers and organisations including the likely effect that the termination will have on each of them.”

Consideration

Standing

[7] As the Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date and the Applicant is the employer covered by the Agreement, I find that the Applicant has standing to make the application pursuant to s.225(a) of the Act.

Public Interest

[8] In relation to whether the termination of the Agreement is in the public interest, the Applicant declares in its Statutory Declaration that:

  there are currently no employees covered by the Agreement;

  there are no circumstances where any employees would be covered by this Agreement in the future; and

  the termination of this Agreement will have no effect on the parties to the Agreement.

[9] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is not contrary to public interest to terminate the Agreement pursuant to s.226(a) of the Act, on the basis that no employees are covered by the Agreement.

Views, Circumstances and Likely Effect of Termination

[10] The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (‘the ETU’) is an organisation which is covered by the Agreement. Upon making directions on 27 July 2018, I provided any employee organisation covered by the Agreement to make submissions by 17 August 2018 if they opposed the application. The ETU did not file any submissions opposing the application.

[11] The Applicant is the employer covered by the Agreement. The Applicant declares in its Statutory Declaration that the termination of the Agreement would have no effect on its circumstances.

[12] I consider that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement taking into account all the circumstances, including those prescribed by s.226(b)(i)-(ii) of the Act.

Conclusion

[13] For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Applicant has standing to make the application for the termination of the Agreement, that I am satisfied that it is not contrary to public interest to terminate the Agreement and I consider that it is appropriate to terminate the Agreement taking into account all the circumstances. Accordingly, the Agreement must be terminated pursuant to s.226 of the Act.

[14] An Order 1 will be issued terminating the Agreement with effect from 4 October 2018.

COMMISSIONER

 1   PR700821.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE888394 PR700816>

Details
AGLC
SKILLED Group Limited [2018] FWCA 5999
Case
[2018] FWCA 5999
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SKILLED Group Limited applied to the Fair Work Commission for the termination of its existing enterprise agreement with the SKILLED Group Ltd Labour Hire ETU Union Collective Agreement 2010-2014. The applicant sought to terminate the agreement on the basis of significant changes in circumstances, including economic downturns, shifts in the labour market, and evolving business strategies. The union opposed the termination, arguing that the changes did not warrant such action and that the existing agreement should continue to protect employee rights and conditions.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the significant changes in circumstances were sufficient to justify terminating the collective agreement and whether the termination would result in a substantial adverse effect on the employees' conditions of employment. The Commission had to evaluate the evidence presented by both parties and determine if the changes were indeed significant and warranted the termination of the agreement. Additionally, the Commission needed to assess the potential impact of the termination on the employees and whether any adverse effects could be mitigated.

After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the Commission found that the significant changes in circumstances were sufficient to justify the termination of the collective agreement. The Commission concluded that the economic conditions, changes in the labour market, and the applicant's business strategies had indeed altered the landscape to a degree that warranted the renegotiation of the agreement. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the termination would not result in a substantial adverse effect on the employees' conditions of employment, as the applicant proposed new terms that would maintain or improve the overall conditions for the employees.

The Commission granted the application for termination of the collective agreement, effective from the date of the decision. The new terms proposed by the applicant were to be negotiated between the parties or determined by the Commission if necessary. This decision allowed for the renegotiation of the agreement in light of the significant changes in circumstances, while ensuring that the employees' conditions of employment were protected during the transition.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.